Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42298374›Full record

ArticleBJU international2026

Intermediate clinical endpoints as surrogates for overall survival after salvage prostatectomy.

Navid Roessler, Zuzanna Nowicka, Marcin Miszczyk, Giorgio Calleris, Alessandro Dematteis, Malte W Vetterlein, Simone Albisinni, Henk G Van Der Poel, Paul Cathcart, Giovanni E Cacciamani and 13 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BJU international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Navid RoesslerDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2792-9828
Zuzanna NowickaDepartment of Biostatistics and Translational Medicine, Medical University of Łódź, Łódź, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7814-5830
Marcin MiszczykDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4375-0827
Giorgio CallerisDepartment of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Torino School of Medicine, Torino, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3831-1632
Alessandro DematteisDepartment of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Torino School of Medicine, Torino, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4125-3874
Malte W VetterleinDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5987-3883
Simone AlbisinniUrology Department, University Clinics of Brussels, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5529-3064
Henk G Van Der PoelDepartment of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Paul CathcartDepartment of Urology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Giovanni E CacciamaniUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8892-5539
Inderbir S GillUSC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5113-7846
Raj A PersadDepartment of Urology, Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9121-0550
Steven JoniauDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3195-9890
Rafael Sanchez-SalasDepartment of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2407-4760
Joseph A SmithDepartment of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3574-7780
Robert Jeffrey KarnesDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2339-5925
Mohamed E AhmedDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Pawel RajwaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4073-6584
Derya TilkiDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7033-1380
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Paolo GonteroDepartment of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Torino School of Medicine, Torino, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9714-6596
Giancarlo MarraDepartment of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza, University of Torino School of Medicine, Torino, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2363-026X
Young Academic Urologists Prostate Cancer Working Party

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) as potential intermediate clinical endpoints (ICEs) for overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP). PATIENTS AND

methodsEvaluable patients were selected from a retrospective dataset, resulting in a cohort of 879 patients with recurrent, non-metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treated with sRP at 13 centres. ICE surrogacy was evaluated using a two-stage approach: (i) at the individual-patient level by fitting Clayton copula models and estimating Kendall's

resultsThe two-step analysis included 759 patients for BRFS (366 events) and 476 for MFS (137 events), with median follow-up of 37 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 36-42 months) and 34 months (95% CI 31-37 months), respectively. At the individual-patient level, MFS showed a strong association with OS (Kendall's

conclusionsThe BRFS should not be used as a surrogate endpoint in the sRP setting. MFS requires further validation in future prospective studies to confirm its association with OS. Patient-reported outcomes, such as quality-of-life and treatment-related toxicity, should be considered in parallel with OS.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyProstatic NeoplasmsSalvage TherapyAgedDisease-Free SurvivalHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesProstate-Specific Antigenbiochemical recurrence‐free survivalintermediate clinical endpointmetastasis‐free survivalsalvage radical prostatectomysurrogate endpoints

Identifiers

PMID42298374
PMCPMC13458636

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.